Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Simon_Jester]

Incidentally, SCRawl, I've seen much worse literacy tests than that one; if you go digging you'll find better examples of the ones that were blatantly unfair and obviously set up so that nobody could pass them if the examiner didn't want them to.

At least most of the questions on that test are factual ones that have an objectively correct answer. I've seen literacy tests where many of the questions are deliberate 'trick questions' where there are two or more plausible answers, allowing the grader to decide that whatever got put on the paper is "wrong."

It's really fucking easy to keep "undesireables" from voting, if you've got an ethically challenged court system. We used to have them, they're called "literacy tests" and they have no "right answer" as they are "graded" by people who are given freedom to pass or fail at their discretion. And they include vague enough questions that you can fail someone no matter what they answer. There's historical precedent, and a SCOTUS that doesn't feel like preventing it... won't prevent it.

Put this way, we have a really, really fucking explicit set of constitutional precedents against doing such things, established during the 1960s. If it started to pass, you would see protests escalating into rioting. The level of pushback would very quickly become totally unmanageable, because most whites do not want Jim Crow back.

Furthermore, there's an "ethically challenged" Supreme Court, and then there's an "actively wants to institute apartheid" Supreme Court. There is a difference between those two extremes. Someone like Alito or Roberts may be cheerily willing to eviscerate a wide variety of rights protections, but that doesn't mean they want to sign their name to a court decision that tries to institute American apartheid. Especially not after that exact thing, which previously existed in the US, was destroyed and the majority of Americans say "good riddance to it." During their lifetimes, no less!

Look, the situation with regards to the Trump administration and civil rights is bad. Incredibly bad. But we have got to have a realistic understanding of what Republican majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court would even want to achieve, versus what things will result in those majorities starting to fracture. A man who will vote to gut campaign finance protections or to allow private organizations to discriminate against gays in the name of religious freedom isn't automatically a man who secretly longs to try and take away the vote of all those black people.

[Simon_Jester]

Speaking to a gathering of religious leaders, the president also defended his immigration policy, brushed aside concern about his harsh phone calls with foreign leaders, and ridiculed Arnold Schwarzenegger for his poor ratings in replacing Mr. Trump as host of “Celebrity Apprentice.”

When I pictured the rise of American fascism, this was not what I imagined.

Well it's just "Celebrity Apprentice: President Edition" now isn't it? It would be funny if it weren't, you know, real.

I wish we could just have them trade jobs. Ahnuld would make a much better president than Trumpolini, and Trumpolini would probably actually make a better reality TV show host than Ahnuld.

Sure, there's a constitutional provision saying Ahnuld can't be president, but it's not like constitutional provisions are important to the Trump administration.

[Ralin]

When I pictured the rise of American fascism, this was not what I imagined.

Well it's just "Celebrity Apprentice: President Edition" now isn't it? It would be funny if it weren't, you know, real.

I wish we could just have them trade jobs. Ahnuld would make a much better president than Trumpolini, and Trumpolini would probably actually make a better reality TV show host than Ahnuld.

Sure, there's a constitutional provision saying Ahnuld can't be president, but it's not like constitutional provisions are important to the Trump administration.

So basically what we need to do is get someone to dare Trump that he couldn't do better if they swapped?

[Alferd Packer]

It's unlikely, but less out there than you might expect. Abortion used to be considered something only Catholics cared about, and it being a wedge issue for evangelicals is a fairly recent phenomenon. It will probably never become not a wedge issue, the same way that there are still people opposed to same-sex marriage, but like with same-sex marriage, we could potentially start to see fewer evangelicals over time who are willing to die on that particular hill if the younger generation becomes completely turned off to politics by the excesses of the current leaders.

Well, now we're coming up on 40 years of the modern evangelical movement. That's roughly 3 generations of millions of people indoctrinated with the belief that abortion is the Absolute Worst Thing. All that religious hate isn't going to just up and vanish. I could easily see it taking another 3 generations to work its way out of the mainstream evangelical doctrine.

[Flagg]

Literally unconstitutional.

[Flagg]

I honestly think that if the denizens of every redneck trailer park were abducted by aliens, never to return, a Republican (well we've been over this, a pretend Republican) would never be elected POTUS again, barring a switcharoo like the Dixiecrats in the '60's. And the number of drunk driving deaths would plummet while the average IQ would soar.

Actually, drunk driving deaths would shift around.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.g ... 811336.pdf

Table 5 on Page 28 of PDF.

Specifcally FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System), where they report the statistics of dead drivers with booze in their system through cadaver testing.

The number for BAC >0.08 g/dL which is "drunk" from 1999 to 2004 was:

Whites: 29%
Blacks: 31%
Asians: 23%
Hispanics: 42%
Native Americans: 54%

Right now, whites make up the majority of DUI arrests in this country due to sheer population numbers:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... s/table-43

Total DUI Arrests: 910,470
Whites: 766,440 (I think hispanics are lumped in with whites in this table)
Blacks: 113,928
Asian: 16,831
Native Americans: 12,575

But what happens when the white man is removed? Pedro would quickly become the new face of highway fatalities from alcohol due to both sheer numbers and per capita intensity.

Yeah, thanks of the daily dose of psychopathy and racism.

[SCRawl]

Incidentally, SCRawl, I've seen much worse literacy tests than that one; if you go digging you'll find better examples of the ones that were blatantly unfair and obviously set up so that nobody could pass them if the examiner didn't want them to.

At least most of the questions on that test are factual ones that have an objectively correct answer. I've seen literacy tests where many of the questions are deliberate 'trick questions' where there are two or more plausible answers, allowing the grader to decide that whatever got put on the paper is "wrong."

Oh, I'm aware that worse examples exist, but I think that the example I provided was sufficient to demonstrate that Shep's assertion that failing a "literacy test" was not the same thing as falling into the category of feeblemindedness.




Edit: sentence structure didn't work

[LaCroix]

Well it's just "Celebrity Apprentice: President Edition" now isn't it? It would be funny if it weren't, you know, real.

I wish we could just have them trade jobs. Ahnuld would make a much better president than Trumpolini, and Trumpolini would probably actually make a better reality TV show host than Ahnuld.

Sure, there's a constitutional provision saying Ahnuld can't be president, but it's not like constitutional provisions are important to the Trump administration.

So basically what we need to do is get someone to dare Trump that he couldn't do better if they swapped?

Arnold himself beat you to it...

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, thanks of the daily dose of psychopathy and racism.

To be fair, if literally zero white people were getting drunk (because they'd been kidnapped by aliens, or they were all busy getting stoned), then by definition drunk driving would no longer be a white-people activity.

Of course, the other effects of this would be so great that the whole question would become meaningless.

[Simon_Jester]

Arnold himself beat you to it...

I can cope with being beaten by Arnold Schwarzenegger. If I'm going to lose a contest to someone, losing it to him is no shame. As long as the contest doesn't involve speaking accent-free English, or marital fidelity.

Well, now we're coming up on 40 years of the modern evangelical movement. That's roughly 3 generations of millions of people indoctrinated with the belief that abortion is the Absolute Worst Thing. All that religious hate isn't going to just up and vanish. I could easily see it taking another 3 generations to work its way out of the mainstream evangelical doctrine.

To be fair, if you sincerely believe that fetuses are people, abortion is pretty much the Absolute Worst Thing. Because there are several hundred thousand abortions a year. And if fetuses are people, that's several hundred thousand dead people.

I can imagine someone saying "you know, Trump is such a horrible person on every level, but I expect that if he wins office abortion will stop happening, and I'm willing to support him because of that, because fetuses are people."

And I would be forced to reply: "You know, I disagree with you as a matter of fact. I think that early-development fetuses cannot possibly be people because XYZ. But if we were to assume your premise for the sake of argument... Then you're actually... very possibly right."

Single-issue abortion voters are the biggest single group of hardcore conservative voters I can respect.

[Civil War Man]

Well, now we're coming up on 40 years of the modern evangelical movement. That's roughly 3 generations of millions of people indoctrinated with the belief that abortion is the Absolute Worst Thing. All that religious hate isn't going to just up and vanish. I could easily see it taking another 3 generations to work its way out of the mainstream evangelical doctrine.

To be fair, if you sincerely believe that fetuses are people, abortion is pretty much the Absolute Worst Thing. Because there are several hundred thousand abortions a year. And if fetuses are people, that's several hundred thousand dead people.

On the other hand, even if they do believe that abortion is the Worst Thing Ever, as Elheru pointed out, some of them are starting to come to the realization that to many of the leaders of the so-called Pro-Life movement, the sanctity of life begins at conception and ends at birth. Or, as George Carlin so eloquently put it, they "want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers."

[Flagg]

Arnold himself beat you to it...

I can cope with being beaten by Arnold Schwarzenegger. If I'm going to lose a contest to someone, losing it to him is no shame. As long as the contest doesn't involve speaking accent-free English, or marital fidelity.

What about sexually assaulting females on movie sets?

[Flagg]

Yeah, thanks of the daily dose of psychopathy and racism.

To be fair, if literally zero white people were getting drunk (because they'd been kidnapped by aliens, or they were all busy getting stoned), then by definition drunk driving would no longer be a white-people activity.

Of course, the other effects of this would be so great that the whole question would become meaningless.

I never said drunk driving would stop, I said incidences of it would go down. I also didn't say "all white people" I said trailer park rednecks.

The best part is that our resident white hood devotee didn't argue against the average IQ going up.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, if the competition involves him doing more of it than me, I am not ashamed if he wins. Quite the opposite, he should be ashamed of himself (seriously, he should be).

[Seriously, the thing about Schwarzenegger isn't that he's a good choice despite being a Gropenator, it's that we already elected a Gropenator anyway, so we might as well have gotten one who has some positive characteristics somewhere else in his personality, as opposed to one who is just all-around worthless in all ways.]
_________________________________

By contrast, if the competition involves him doing less of it than me, then if we go for lifetime averages, he's already lost.

If the competition involves him doing less of it from me, and if we go for "from start of competition into the future," he's going to have to at best stop doing it forever and manage a 0-0 draw with me, tying for the "never doing that" prize.

In which case he didn't win, he tied.

So any which way, I don't have to be ashamed of losing to him. Either it's not shameful to lose, or I didn't lose.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Incidentally, SCRawl, I've seen much worse literacy tests than that one; if you go digging you'll find better examples of the ones that were blatantly unfair and obviously set up so that nobody could pass them if the examiner didn't want them to.

At least most of the questions on that test are factual ones that have an objectively correct answer. I've seen literacy tests where many of the questions are deliberate 'trick questions' where there are two or more plausible answers, allowing the grader to decide that whatever got put on the paper is "wrong."

It's really fucking easy to keep "undesireables" from voting, if you've got an ethically challenged court system. We used to have them, they're called "literacy tests" and they have no "right answer" as they are "graded" by people who are given freedom to pass or fail at their discretion. And they include vague enough questions that you can fail someone no matter what they answer. There's historical precedent, and a SCOTUS that doesn't feel like preventing it... won't prevent it.

Put this way, we have a really, really fucking explicit set of constitutional precedents against doing such things, established during the 1960s. If it started to pass, you would see protests escalating into rioting. The level of pushback would very quickly become totally unmanageable, because most whites do not want Jim Crow back.

Furthermore, there's an "ethically challenged" Supreme Court, and then there's an "actively wants to institute apartheid" Supreme Court. There is a difference between those two extremes. Someone like Alito or Roberts may be cheerily willing to eviscerate a wide variety of rights protections, but that doesn't mean they want to sign their name to a court decision that tries to institute American apartheid. Especially not after that exact thing, which previously existed in the US, was destroyed and the majority of Americans say "good riddance to it." During their lifetimes, no less!

Look, the situation with regards to the Trump administration and civil rights is bad. Incredibly bad. But we have got to have a realistic understanding of what Republican majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court would even want to achieve, versus what things will result in those majorities starting to fracture. A man who will vote to gut campaign finance protections or to allow private organizations to discriminate against gays in the name of religious freedom isn't automatically a man who secretly longs to try and take away the vote of all those black people.

I will admit to an extreme amount of pessimism here, and that pulling off the scale of voter suppression needed would require being far more clever than the Republicans have shown themselves to be. Literacy tests or similar, I do not see being realistically implementable without a level of cunning that they've shown no signs of possessing.

Now, if the GOP can manage to shed the image of being hostile to minorities? Then they've ensured their survival for decades to come without needing to make any other changes. There's a lot of people who agree with the Republicans on a substantial number of issues but will not support Republicans because the GOP is seen as being inherently hostile to their group. The GOP currently is not making real efforts at fixing that image problem, but if they do? Then suddenly voter suppression will become much less about race and more about socioeconomic status. So, ID laws and that sort of shit. Make sure accepted IDs cost money, but a relatively small amount so they can pretend it's not an onerous thing. And, to protect the House, continue with gerrymandering.

[TheFeniX]

I will admit to an extreme amount of pessimism here, and that pulling off the scale of voter suppression needed would require being far more clever than the Republicans have shown themselves to be. Literacy tests or similar, I do not see being realistically implementable without a level of cunning that they've shown no signs of possessing.

"They" tried literacy tests but had to rely on explicit racism from polling workers to implement it the way they wanted to because literacy tests would disenfranchise poor whites otherwise.

And saying they aren't clever enough to pull of wide-scale voter suppression isn't true, the are just clever in other ways of doing it

The court said that in crafting the law, the Republican-controlled general assembly requested and received data on voters’ use of various voting practices by race. It found that African American voters in North Carolina are more likely to vote early, use same-day voter registration and straight-ticket voting. They were also disproportionately less likely to have an ID, more likely to cast a provisional ballot and take advantage of pre-registration.

Then, the court, said, lawmakers restricted all of these voting options, and further narrowed the list of acceptable voter IDs. “… [W]ith race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.”

The state offered little justification for the law, the court said. Those who defended the law said they were doing so to prevent voter fraud. “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist,” the court said.

They don't "target blacks" anymore.They just look at how <insert voting block we hate> handles their business. Then do everything they can to fuck that up. They don't stop you from voting, but they handle it like Comcast handles customer service: make it so difficult and painful to deal with, you just don't bother.

And since after the McCain boondongle the party leaned on their religious and racist factions even harder, minorities have no one else to turn to, which is a shame because African-American views (in general, mind you) on many social issues are Republican-level conservatism, but they vote overwhelming in favor of Democrats. Or they try to, then get rejected.

Shit like this is why I've truly come to despise the Republican party: it's all about destroying Americans they don't like to try and keep the ones they do. And, considering the evidence, there's almost no other explanation for it other than explicit racism.

[Flagg]

Well, yeah if I had to choose between President Pussygrabber and Governor Pussygrabber, I go with the T-800 Model 101.

[MKSheppard]

Yeah, thanks of the daily dose of psychopathy and racism.

Is there anything factually wrong with what I just stated?

It's even been noted by NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5572465

and Huff Po (wait, aren't they REAL NEWS?)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/3 ... 47811.html

[MKSheppard]

Oh, come now. Do you really need the history lesson? Here's a sample from a Mississippi voter application form from 1955:

...

The full thing is here.

Keep in mind that these were applied only to Black voters.

Reading that document, I note several things.

GNB:gnb
This is the initials of the person who prepared/typed the document. It's found in pre-computer era documents; so if there is a typo, you can find the person responsible and browbeat them. Gone now, with word spellcheck and printers capable of running off x number of copies without errors.

I also note that it's a Voter Registration Form, so there's a reason for the detailed questions.

I also note amusingly:

"If there is more than one person of your same name in the precinct, by what name do you wish to be called?"



I note that Section 18 and 19 are the ones that are key to the "discrimination" thing.

The Registrar picks out a portion of the Constitution of Mississippi (PDF Page 3 of the document), and you have to then correctly copy that section of the constitution into Section 18 and then interpret it in section 19.

A white person would get the easy peasy question(s) -- Section 14. "No person Shall be deprived of life liberty or property except by due process of law." or Section 209 "Separate Schools shall be maintained for children of the white and colored races."

A black person would get the more twisty ones, such as Section 21 -- a good "fuck you" one since how many people actually know what the fuck a Writ of Habeas Corpus is in real life without consulting a dictionary?

To be completely honest, this is an actually very good voter registration form; and if suitably modernized to eliminate the "fuck you, I don't like you" sample sections that would be abused by registrars to eliminate people they don't like; it would be a good way to increase the quality of the voting public; which I assume is the stated objective of some in this thread -- after all, what am I forced to assume by a post such as this:

I honestly think that if the denizens of every redneck trailer park were abducted by aliens, never to return, a Republican (well we've been over this, a pretend Republican) would never be elected POTUS again, barring a switcharoo like the Dixiecrats in the '60's. And the number of drunk driving deaths would plummet while the average IQ would soar.

[MKSheppard]

TheFeniX, I note in one of your articles:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/artic ... ack-voters

I followed that up to the actual brief

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/u ... nc-4th.pdf

thence forth to the actual bill in question:

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bill ... H589v9.pdf

First things first.

A.) 49 pages of dense type is too fucking much for any bill. The people responsible for that length should be hung by the neck until dead as a prophylactic operation.

B.) I note that the media omits facts.

North Carolina’s bill extended beyond requiring a state-issued photo ID at the polls.
is the claim.

"§ 163-166.13. Photo identification requirement for voting in person.
(a) Every qualified voter voting in person in accordance with this Article,
G.S. 163-227.2, or G.S. 163-182.1A shall present photo identification bearing any reasonable
resemblance to that voter to a local election official at the voting place before voting, except as
follows:

(1) For a registered voter voting curbside, that voter shall present identification
under G.S. 163-166.9.

(2) For a registered voter who has a sincerely held religious objection to being
photographed and has filed a declaration in accordance with G.S. 163-82.7A
at least 25 days before the election in which that voter is voting in person,
that voter shall not be required to provide photo identification.

(3) For a registered voter who is a victim of a natural disaster occurring within
60 days before election day that resulted in a disaster declaration by the
President of the United States or the Governor of this State who declares the
lack of photo identification due to the natural disaster on a form provided by
the State Board, that voter shall not be required to provide photo
identification in any county subject to such declaration. The form shall be
available from the State Board of Elections, from each county board of
elections in a county subject to the disaster declaration, and at each polling
place and one-stop early voting site in that county. The voter shall submit the
completed form at the time of voting.

(b) Any voter who complies with subsection (a) of this section shall be permitted to
vote.

(c) Any voter who does not comply with subsection (a) of this section shall be
permitted to vote a provisional official ballot which shall be counted in accordance with
G.S. 163-182.1A.

(d) The local election official to whom the photo identification is presented shall
determine if the photo identification bears any reasonable resemblance to the voter presenting
the photo identification. If it is determined that the photo identification does not bear any
reasonable resemblance to the voter, the local election official shall comply with
G.S. 163-166.14.

(e) As used in this section, "photo identification" means any one of the following that
contains a photograph of the registered voter. In addition, the photo identification shall have a
printed expiration date and shall be unexpired, provided that any voter having attained the age
of 70 years at the time of presentation at the voting place shall be permitted to present an
expired form of any of the following that was unexpired on the voter's 70th birthday.
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the case of identification under subdivisions (4)
through (6) of this subsection, if it does not contain a printed expiration date, it shall be
acceptable if it has a printed issuance date that is not more than eight years before it is
presented for voting:

(1) A North Carolina drivers license issued under Article 2 of Chapter 20 of the
General Statutes, including a learner's permit or a provisional license.

(2) A special identification card for nonoperators issued under G.S. 20-37.7.

(3) A United States passport.

(4) A United States military identification card, except there is no requirement
that it have a printed expiration or issuance date.

(5) A Veterans Identification Card issued by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs for use at Veterans Administration medical facilities
facilities, except there is no requirement that it have a printed expiration or
issuance date.

(6) A tribal enrollment card issued by a federally recognized tribe.

(7) A tribal enrollment card issued by a tribe recognized by this State under
Chapter 71A of the General Statutes, provided that card meets all of the
following criteria:

a. Is issued in accordance with a process approved by the State Board
of Elections that requires an application and proof of identity
equivalent to the requirements for issuance of a special identification
card by the Division of Motor Vehicles under G.S. 20-7 and
G.S. 20-37.7.

b. Is signed by an elected official of the tribe.

(8) A drivers license or nonoperators identification card issued by another state,
the District of Columbia, or a territory or commonwealth of the United
States, but only if the voter's voter registration was within 90 days of the
election."

As seen above, you can still vote without a ID; it's just provisionally.

Second, the list of acceptable photo IDs is essentially a condensed version of acceptable ID at airports:

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-scr ... tification

I note one difference being the use of Veterans ID cards -- I guess they gotta chase that "SUPPORT THE MILITARY- RAR STRONK" crowd that way.

Likewise, it's also very close to the official North Carolina ABC Regulations:

https://portal.abc.nc.gov/Public%20Web% ... mation.pdf

Acceptable Forms of Identification:

In North Carolina, there are only four acceptable forms of
identification you can use to buy alcoholic beverages:

1. Current driver’s license from North Carolina or other states.
2. U.S. Military Identification.
3. North Carolina Identification Card. An official State of
North Carolina Special Identification (ID) card that has a
photograph issued to a person who does not drive.
4. Official passport issued by any nation. Passports may be in
the booklet or card form. Official forms of identification
include a photograph, date of birth and written or electronic
signature.

A wristband is not an acceptable form of identification. Other
unacceptable forms of identification include: birth certificates,
school or work ID cards, Social Security Cards, bill
statements or other identifications different from the 4
allowable IDs above

I guess North Carolina discriminates against black people purchasing alcohol. Where's the NAACP lawsuit against this?

EDIT: Likewise, how does eliminating "same day voter registration" discriminate against black people when only 13 states + DC have it, but the other 37 states don't have it?

[Flagg]

Yeah, thanks of the daily dose of psychopathy and racism.

Is there anything factually wrong with what I just stated?

It's even been noted by NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5572465

and Huff Po (wait, aren't they REAL NEWS?)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/3 ... 47811.html

Yes, because I said "trailer park rednecks" not "all white people". And your offensive use of the name Pedro to refer to all Americans of Mexican descent would be reported, but for some reason you can do or say anything without repercussions so it's pointless.

Fucking psychopathic racist shit eating asshole.

[MKSheppard]

And your offensive use of the name Pedro to refer to all Americans of Mexican descent would be reported, but for some reason you can do or say anything without repercussions so it's pointless.

South of the Border on I95 is really run down now.

[Flagg]

And your offensive use of the name Pedro to refer to all Americans of Mexican descent would be reported, but for some reason you can do or say anything without repercussions so it's pointless.

South of the Border on I95 is really run down now.

Well that's on topic.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Shep: it's not really clear to me exactly what you are trying to argue with the North Carolina voting laws thing. Or, rather, I know what you are trying to argue, but you seem to be missing the point. Looking at the wording of the bill and saying, "It doesn't explicitly say black people can't vote so there's nothing wrong with it at all lol" is spectacularly naive. It's also ignoring a point that Simon, Napoleon, and Fenix already eloquently made earlier in this very thread (hell, on this very page of this thread). The real insidious nature of these laws is that they don't explicitly codify anything racist, but they present enough ambiguity that poll workers on the ground are able to essentially choose when and where to actually apply/enforce these laws, in a way that disproportionately impacts African-Americans and other minority voters.

I mean, if it weren't enough for you that multiple federal courts have struck down laws like that, a simple Google search will present you with the necessary facts and figures. The fact that you were able to do enough research to find the exact text of the law while also somehow ignoring its context is pretty staggering. Go look up the 83-page ruling that describes the "surgical precision" with which Republicans wielded this law to disenfranchise African-Americans. Maybe read that instead of preparing your next onslaught of irrelevant statistics about crime in Baltimore to vomit all over the next mass shooting thread.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Any and all discussion of Donald Trump's internal policy goes here.